Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Fort Bend County v. Davis (U.S. Supreme Court)


As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Late last month, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fort Bend County v. Davis, a case that centers on whether the requirement that employment discrimination claimants present their claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") before filing suit is a jurisdictional prerequisite or instead a claim processing rule.

In this case, Lois Davis sued Fort Bend County for religious discrimination despite the fact that she never filed a charge of religious discrimination with the EEOC before filing suit.  As readers might be aware, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires claimants to exhaust claims of employment discrimination with the EEOC (including by filing a charge with the EEOC) prior to filing suit.  This exhaustion requirement ensures the EEOC has the ability to investigate a claim of discrimination, attempt conciliation with the employer, and even give the employer notice of the alleged discriminatory practice with the ability to cease that allegedly unlawful behavior.  However, there is a split among Circuits over whether a claimant's failure to exhaust discrimination claims precludes a court from hearing the matter.  The Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that the exhaustion requirement in Title VII is jurisdictional, thus courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims that were never presented to the EEOC.  (The Department of Justice subscribes to this line of reasoning as well.)  Eight Circuits disagree, characterizing the exhaustion requirement as a claim processing rule that is subject to waiver, forfeiture, or other equitable defenses.  (The EEOC subscribes to this line of reasoning as well.)

Notably, Fort Bend County waited five years before arguing that Davis had failed to properly file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.  If the exhaustion requirement in Title VII is found to be a claim processing rule, Fort Bend's failure to exhaust argument would not be timely (as it came too late.)  On the other hand, if the exhaustion requirement is found to be jurisdictional, Fort Bend could properly proceed with this argument (as it would not be too late to argue Davis failed to comply with Title VII.)

At the oral arguments, counsel for Fort Bend County argued that the text and structure of Title VII indicated that the exhaustion remedy is jurisdictional.  That same section of Title VII further contains a grant of jurisdiction for federal courts to hear "actions brought under this subchapter."  Consequently, the argument was made that taken together, these paragraphs provided "text linking explicitly to the jurisdictional provision" as "part of an intricate scheme for statutory and judicial review."  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared skeptical of this line of reasoning, pointing out that with the EEOC's limited power to resolve claims, it would be unusual to deem jurisdictional an agency process that can result only in conciliation (as opposed to adjudication.)  Counsel for Davis zeroed in on this line of reasoning, pointing out that unlike the EEOC's power over discrimination claims, the National Labor Relations Act allows agencies to actually adjudicate claims that are then reviewed by federal appeals courts.

As many legal scholars have noted, based upon how oral arguments played out, it is likely that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Davis and find that Title VII's exhaustion requirement is a claim processing rule rather than a jurisdictional requirement.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more